On Sep 10, 9:53 am, Ed earthlink.net> wrote:

It's a very complex question whether a specific merger would be
beneficial to a given company or not, with many variables involved.
Far more variables than they ones you mention. Many mergers don't end
up successful - and end up case studies at business schools to
understand why. One perhaps most mentioned with wry cyncism was AOL's
takeover of Time-Warner. Yes, we tend to forget that it was AOL which
took over Time-Warner, especially now that AOL has become Time-
Warner's albatross. Or the Hewlett-Packard takeover of Compaq.
Remember Compaq. Forget Compaq. HP would have done far better without
it and it certainly didn't do Carly Fiorna's career any good. She was
canned soon after.

This isnt't to say some mergers aren't beneficial and for precisely
the reasons you mention. But nothing, merged or not, renders a company
immune from competition. The anti-trust laws aren't needed for that
purpose - nor has it ever been demonstrated that they are - just a
free and open market.

Furthermore, competition is good for business - even if a given
businessman looking at it myopically doesn't grasp it, especially if a
Wal-Mart has just opened up on the outskirts of town. He just needs to
take a hard look at his business and think of ways to adjust it to the
new market reality. Businessmen that do that succeed. Those that
don't, well....no one said it was easy, nor is there any reason why it
should be.

Fred Weiss